+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46
Windows Vista Thread, Is Vista as bad as they make out? in Technical; Ok, I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons here, but I'd like people to put some complete reasons ...
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Elgin, Scotland
    Posts
    387
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    23

    Is Vista as bad as they make out?

    Ok, I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons here, but I'd like people to put some complete reasons forward as to why they feel Vista is rubbish.

    I hear things every day on various forums/groups/blogs I frequent on how Vista is terrible and that it's worse than ME, etc., but I've been using it since it was released to Microsoft Partners in November 2006 and to be honest I'm finding it pretty good.

    I think one of the major things people are forgetting is that XP was absolutely slated in the same way when it came out, and it was only when SP2 came out that it really became truely appreciated. I think Ed Bott over at ZDNet says it better than I can: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

    So my question to my fellow edugeekers is this:

    What makes Vista so absolutely terrible compared to XP's early days? What particular feature(s)/bug(s)/etc, do you think warrant it being labelled Windows ME II and similar?

    This isn't a rant at you guys in particular, just throwing it out to you guys/gals as I know I'll get some reasoned responses on here.

    Over to you...

  2. #2

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,241
    Thank Post
    239
    Thanked 1,567 Times in 1,249 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    The hardware requirements are incredibly high comparatively to Windows 2000/XP/2003, especially when it comes to memory requirements. Run Vista on anything with less than 2GB of memory and its not very responsive at all.

    Many applications and drivers (even after 1 year of Vista) are still incompatible or problematic. Evident of this, Microsoft have blocked Vista SP1 for particular users if certain devices with certain device drivers are installed. Things like this just shouldn't happen.

    I also greatly believe that users across the globe are more selective about what they want to use and what they want to achieve. Microsoft's worst enemy are themselves, especially with Windows XP. XP is fast, reliable, compatible with a huge range of applications/drivers and it greatly rivals Vista. Other than visual elements of Vista, Microsoft have concentrated on security (which is important), however for most people it's of no interest.

    Users demand new features/functions and Vista comparatively delivers very little from XP. Vista is definitely something for the future, but for now, it's XP all the way - especially with SP3 around the corner

  3. #3
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by RobC View Post
    Ok, I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons here, but I'd like people to put some complete reasons forward as to why they feel Vista is rubbish.

    I hear things every day on various forums/groups/blogs I frequent on how Vista is terrible and that it's worse than ME, etc., but I've been using it since it was released to Microsoft Partners in November 2006 and to be honest I'm finding it pretty good.

    I think one of the major things people are forgetting is that XP was absolutely slated in the same way when it came out, and it was only when SP2 came out that it really became truely appreciated. I think Ed Bott over at ZDNet says it better than I can: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

    So my question to my fellow edugeekers is this:

    What makes Vista so absolutely terrible compared to XP's early days? What particular feature(s)/bug(s)/etc, do you think warrant it being labelled Windows ME II and similar?

    This isn't a rant at you guys in particular, just throwing it out to you guys/gals as I know I'll get some reasoned responses on here.

    Over to you...
    I don't subscribe to the idea that Windows XP only came good following release of SP2, there are a still a lot of big business on XP SP1 - typically the very large, very cautious orgs....

    For us the main reason for deploying SP2 was the same reason for previous Microsoft service packs - getting a role up of the various hotfixes and patches in one package. Rather than the pointless stuff that people seem to rather bizarrely rave about such Windows Firewall.

    Can't really comment a great deal on whether Vista sucks as i've only dabbled with it briefly. But my first impressions and objection is the overwhelming feeling that it really is an 'eye candy' exercise.

  4. #4


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Why Vista is rubbish

    [QUOTE]What makes Vista so absolutely terrible compared to XP's early days?[?QUOTE]

    in XP's early days it was essentially 2k with some wizards and some wireless. I agree that the SP2 really bloated it out, like successive patching was supposed to make the machine slower! but vista is in a different league.
    In the end I got fed up with XP and it's constant need for maintenance. Given enough time (and enough monkeys) MS will re-invent Unix anyway. So my linux migration gave me a head start.
    I am holding high hopes for windows7 though, I suspect MS will put this forward if business doesn't adopt vista soon enough.
    Last edited by CyberNerd; 19th March 2008 at 09:36 PM.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Elgin, Scotland
    Posts
    387
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    23
    Excellent, I got some interesting responses as hoped. I should make you aware that I'm not necessarily trying to make excuses for Vista. I'm just interested in the opinions, etc. Either way, I'm going to query a couple of the points made...

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    The hardware requirements are incredibly high comparatively to Windows 2000/XP/2003, especially when it comes to memory requirements. Run Vista on anything with less than 2GB of memory and its not very responsive at all.
    Again, this was true of XP and if you have ever tried running XP on its minimum memory requirements (64Mb) it is virtually un-usable. The same is true of Vista - its minimum requirements may be higher (512Mb) and its actual usable amount (1Gb-2Gb depending) higher still, but this is the inevitable march of technology and there has been seven whole years since the launch of XP which in IT terms is an ice age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    Many applications and drivers (even after 1 year of Vista) are still incompatible or problematic. Evident of this, Microsoft have blocked Vista SP1 for particular users if certain devices with certain device drivers are installed. Things like this just shouldn't happen.
    Yes, things like this shouldn't happen, but surely this isn't Microsoft's fault. Surely we should be ranting & moaning at the application and hardware developers to pull their fingers out and get this sorted. After all, they have had access to Vista for almost a year & a half since its launch, and roughly two to three years prior to that, and yet they still can't get thier applications and drivers to work properly. I don't think we're really pointing the blame in the right direction on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    I also greatly believe that users across the globe are more selective about what they want to use and what they want to achieve. Microsoft's worst enemy are themselves, especially with Windows XP. XP is fast, reliable, compatible with a huge range of applications/drivers and it greatly rivals Vista. Other than visual elements of Vista, Microsoft have concentrated on security (which is important), however for most people it's of no interest.
    Microsoft have concentrated on security, and yet for most people it is of no interest? I would put this one more down to MS not marketing Vista properly then, rather than it being a particular problem with Vista itself. Ok, so Vista doesn't have a huge array of fancy features immediately obvious to tempt the buyer, but surely the major security changes shoudl be a big winner. And now that Server 2008 is out, there are more features available to the coporate users too. It's not that Vista is bad, more that MS's marketing is bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by torledo
    I don't subscribe to the idea that Windows XP only came good following release of SP2, there are a still a lot of big business on XP SP1 - typically the very large, very cautious orgs....
    There are still a few large, caution orgs using NT4 - that doesn't mean it's good! :P

    Come on then... any more thoughts?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kendal
    Posts
    1,555
    Thank Post
    111
    Thanked 177 Times in 144 Posts
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by RobC View Post

    The same is true of Vista - its minimum requirements may be higher (512Mb) and its actual usable amount (1Gb-2Gb depending) higher still, but this is the inevitable march of technology and there has been seven whole years since the launch of XP which in IT terms is an ice age.
    No - it's 2Gb that's usable - 1Gb just doesn't do it. We've just bought some new Pc's for our office and we have vista on them and it's usable-ish.

    I think on the whole my feelings with Vista are it's ok but what is it bringing to the party?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Elgin, Scotland
    Posts
    387
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    23
    Funny, I'm using Vista on a fairly old (~3-4 years) machine with 1Gb of RAM and it's running great for me. Starts up and logs on very quickly and is responsive throughout the day.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    877
    Thank Post
    274
    Thanked 139 Times in 112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26
    Rep Power
    42
    I ran Vista Ultimate at home for a while and really like it. It felt nice, looked nice, but over time I just got frustrated with it. Sometimes just browsing a directory tooks ages to respond.

    The whole 'calculating time to copy' fiasco (fixed in SP1 I believe?) really pushed me over the edge, but it really did feel bloated. As someone said, don't bother if you've got less than 2Gb of RAM. All the IT Rooms in the School I work at are stuck on 512Mb for the foreseeable future, so Vista is at least a while away yet.

    And why the hell should I have to run a Virtual PC running Windows XP to get some software that I used to work again?

    When I went back to XP at home, my machine just felt so much more responsive. But dare I say it.... it looks a little dated compared to Vista?

    Give me the look of Vista without all the bloat.

    Pete

  9. #9
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    I'm not over impressed but i'm starting to like it since i've stuck with it on my work desktop and it only has 1Gb of RAM. My main gripe is the need for 'at least' a 128 meg GPU just to run the jazzy new GUI features it's just too heavy.

    -----------------------------------
    @torledo

    Rather than the pointless stuff that people seem to rather bizarrely rave about such Windows Firewall
    I would just like to add that although there are better firewalls if MS has turned it on by default then most of the 'worm' incidences of 2002/03 could of been avoided and should of been concidered essential. It should still be used now IMHO unless you sub it for something else or you have NAP you are open to potential problems.
    Last edited by cookie_monster; 19th March 2008 at 10:58 PM.

  10. #10

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,241
    Thank Post
    239
    Thanked 1,567 Times in 1,249 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Again, this was true of XP and if you have ever tried running XP on its minimum memory requirements (64Mb) it is virtually un-usable. The same is true of Vista - its minimum requirements may be higher (512Mb) and its actual usable amount (1Gb-2Gb depending) higher still, but this is the inevitable march of technology and there has been seven whole years since the launch of XP which in IT terms is an ice age.
    Windows 2000 had a minimum required of 64MB, but XP was always 128MB (for full functionality). The memory requirement doubled. With Windows Vista, this has quadrupled since Windows XP and the rest! Vista needs a fast CPU and decent graphics to fully appreciate it. You can run Windows XP on a Pentium II 300MHz easily.

    Yes, things like this shouldn't happen, but surely this isn't Microsoft's fault.
    My understanding was that Windows Vista only allows signed drivers by default, whereas XP warns the user by default and allows you to Continue Anyway. It is Microsoft's fault, because clearly they're still not working close enough with manufactures to write drivers considered signable. And the end result is it causes further disruption to some users now applying Vista SP1. If Windows Update detects you have certain devices with certain device drivers installed, you have to address this before applying the Service Pack. I never had this problem with 2000 or XP.

    Microsoft have concentrated on security, and yet for most people it is of no interest? I would put this one more down to MS not marketing Vista properly then, rather than it being a particular problem with Vista itself.
    The Microsoft marketing isn't the issue in my opinion. They focused on the visuals because Apple did and they focused on security, because it was important and appealing to business customers. Microsoft however didn't concentrate on application compatibility and they didn't concentrate on optimising Vista. These are the two prime reasons why Vista adoption is slow and why so many return to the more trusted XP. Microsoft always boast about how many licenses they've sold, but rarely is it discussed how many people, companies, enterprises actually use Vista in practice. It isn't that many, even after a year.
    The NT 6.0 kernel could of been optimised at client level and evidence of this is Windows Server 2008. Microsoft made the same mistake with XP/2003 admittedly, however the problem has widened with Vista/2008.

    As for jcollings's contribution I think we need some clarification. Although Windows Vista can and does work with 1GB, we obviously do not just use applications built within the OS. In an Office environment, in education, you could be using Microsoft Office, Sims, FMS, web based applications and more! Vista's initial footprint is larger, so in practice 2GB or more is more appropriate.

  11. Thanks to Michael from:

    RobC (19th March 2008)

  12. #11
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    We still run a room of 2K pro boxes and they're usless with 128Mb memory in, we use NOD32 which is pretty light and they use approx 110Mb just after boot they need 196Mb minimum to be usable. XP is ok with 256 but really 512 is necessary so i'm not surprised that Vista needs at least 1Gb to be usable.

    It's all a big old con.

    MS have focused to hard on backwards compatibility for too long that's the problem, letting software houses get away with insisting on admin rights. Now they are starting to force the issue the house of cards is falling down.

    I'm also running Vista with 1Gb memory and using SIMS and office it's not rocket powered but it's certainly usable.
    Last edited by cookie_monster; 19th March 2008 at 11:15 PM.

  13. #12

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,241
    Thank Post
    239
    Thanked 1,567 Times in 1,249 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    I agree cookie_monster. Microsoft aren't kidding when they say minimum requirements!

    They should really do the recommended requirements which would be more valid in most scenarios.

  14. #13
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,958
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    Interesting read recently on roughlydrafted that made things a lot clearer for me.

    Personally I've been shocked to see blue screens again from Vista. Brand new OS on certified Hardware, boot into the pre-made image for the first time - blue screen.

    I'm a visual person, and am more than tired of XPs looks. But Vista doesn't attract. I really think of it as unnecessary fluff with no extra functionality or security.

  15. #14
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Did you actually get a blue screen? I thought MS had done away with that.

  16. #15
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Hmmmm The Rock isn't a very good film is it

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [SOLVED] Vista Free Space doesn't make sense
    By link470 in forum Windows Vista
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 7th July 2008, 10:37 PM
  2. anyone make sense of this?
    By Ayaz in forum Educational IT Jobs
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 8th March 2008, 08:23 PM
  3. This will make you laugh!
    By in forum General Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 23rd June 2007, 09:13 AM
  4. Make Gnome look like OSX
    By CyberNerd in forum Mac
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26th May 2006, 11:18 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •